I get annoyed at commonly held Misconceptions, and I mean really quite pissed off, more than I realistically should. Unfortunately I’ve chosen to specialise in two fields where misconceptions abound – Egyptian history and religion – AND I’m slightly OCD. Great move, anyone would think I was a glutton for punishment.

My friends have forbidden me, outright banned me from watching ‘The Mummy’ movies, I just bitch too much. The mistakes that irk me the most are all tiny (four canopic jars instead of five, the Book of Thoth instead of the Book of Amun-Re, Sekhmet is a lot more likely to want to destroy the world compared to Anubis, etc. ad nauseum). I don’t mind that they bring an aeons old priest back to life, who somehow has magical powers and miraculously is still faithful to his girlfriend, that I can go along with. But don’t try to tell me they used the sai back in ancient Egypt, just don’t.

I have to wonder if it annoys everyone else as much as me? That it feels somehow even worse that they get obscure little details correct, like when they were speaking ancient Egyptian, but still managed to stuff up points that they really just had to crack a book to get right. Maybe it’s just that I’m too pedantic with my own work, I expect others to be the same, especially when it’s directed at such a wide audience. I stopped writing for two months because one of my characters had something to say about ancient Mesopotamian astrology, which I clearly had wasted my schooling years by spending my time on maths, science, and English instead. After eight weeks of research I find out he really didn’t have that much to say, just a few short paragraphs, which I felt was a bit rude after all the work I’d gone to for him, but what can you do. At least I knew the small amount in there was *right*, and as for the rest I chucked it up on my website in case anyone else out there had a sudden burning desire to learn about Mesopotamian stargazing. It’ll be popular, I’m sure.

That, in a roundabout way, brings me to Angels (my ancient Mesopotamian astrologically-knowledgeable character is an Angel, so the subject change makes sense in my head), and through them to the New Age movement. Or, as I more commonly refer to it, “the damn fluffy bunny New Age movement”. Now don’t get me wrong, there’s little I don’t believe in, or at least will give a chance to believe in, but I can’t stand getting lumped in with the common perception of New Agers just because some of my beliefs are a little alternative. And here’s why:

So much of the New Age movement is based on wishful thinking, not reality, and is on very shaky ground. I believe in spirits, ghosts, aliens and past lives, all these things make sense to me and I’ve either seen them myself or know and trust people who have. But I don’t believe in ‘love and light’, Ascension, or Atlantis.

Bloody Atlantis… Think back to what you’ve heard about it, how many books there are on it, detailing its full history and final watery destruction. Now consider that *everything*, every little ‘fact’ written about Atlantis goes back to one contemporary reference – just the one, and not that big of a one at that. Everything since then is a fabrication, and with only one ancient mention it’s highly possible that the whole thing’s one guy’s imagination anyway.

But Angels, this is what really ruffles my feathers the wrong way, no pun intended. When did Angels turn into benevolent beings that glowed and existed only to make New Agers feel warm and fuzzy? The original perception of them was *very* different. When I say ‘Cherub’ what do you think of? Let me guess: A chubby little child with small wings, possibly carrying a harp or a bow with arrows in the shape of hearts (excuse me while I gag a little from all this sickly sweetness), frolicking among suitably fluffy clouds. That’s what you thought of, isn’t it? No point denying it, it’s what we’ve been taught to think – for the last few centuries in fact. But the original Cherubs, the Cherubim, couldn’t be more different. I would NOT like to meet one of those bastards in a dark alley, that’s for sure. They were said to have four shifting faces, of human, lion, bull, and eagle – all predatory or aggressive animals – as well as two sets of wings and a nasty temperament. These are the guys set to guard the Garden of Eden with the flaming sword, after all, and God’s not gonna send pansies on a job like that. In fact no Angel was particularly nice, not solely because of what they were anyway. To paraphrase a great movie, ‘The Prophecy’, Angels are the creatures that God always sends when he wants anyone killed to make a messy example, would you ever really want to see one?

A whole ream of misconceptions surround the Angels’ enemies, Lucifer, Satan and the Devil. The majority of people today believe them all to be one and the same, despite there being no evidence and the Bible actually being quite clear that they’re separate. Lucifer (which is a title meaning ‘Light Bearer’, and refers to the Seraph Sammael) is only mentioned once, in that he had a bit of a disagreement with the boss and left Heaven with a few of his mates. End of story, no evilness there. Satan is a bit of a prat, I’ll give you that, but a surprising number of times he does all his naughtiness at God’s request – all that tormenting of Job was God’s idea, even if Satan carried out the act. And the Devil, well that’s just a generic title of any two-bit rebel Angel who wants to try and make a name for themselves, it’s really just a bit pathetic.

So how did Angels turn good and Lucifer turn so bad? It’s been a giant game of whispers since about the Dark Ages, I’m gonna guess. Some guy was telling bedtime stories to his children and decided that the Cherubim could do with a fluffy bunny makeover. His kid probably then grew up to paint the Sistine Chapel, or something like that.

But whatever the reason I try to fight it where I can, to get back to the original perception and spread a little education. I’ve written a book about these ancient Angels, creatures that would give New Agers nightmares, and at least I can say my version has some foundation.